"The left's long march through America's institutions is bearing fruit."

they need to make an example out of her.

The LEFT MSM will have their parade of defenders coming on making excused for her. like 1 st amendment etcI also want to know if there is anyway that the media can be found complicit. They need to be held accountable.

I'm unpersuaded, can't get over a skepticism of sources. So much else of what they've written has turned out to be false or misleading. What I'm hearing is that the previous administration admits eavesdropping on the incoming administration and is trying to take them down one person at a time.

Flynn took fees he didn't disclose. Probably a fraction of 'fees' that went to the Clinton machine over the decades. Flynn lost his job. Yates was a partisan. What is the conspiracy? What is the unnamed blackmail material? Are these different anonymously sources close to the administrations that were wrong the last ten times? Of course they discuss lifting sanctions; it's the issue of the day to the Russians and how we save face for letting them occupy sovereign countries without consequence. Why is this a story in June? NYT is concerned that a CIA director won't tell the press and the world what he tells the President, as CIA Directors never have.

Taking money from the Turks unannounced while advising President Elect Trump on the Turks is a serious breach of integrity IMHO.

Agree with you on that (after reading up). But Flynn is gone. This attack is on Trump.

PolitiFact has a Flynn timeline: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/may/23/timeline-michael-flynns-connections-russians-white/

It is very hard to find real coverage on the Flynn story. A lot was based on a Politico story, but like the rest of this shameful period in 'professional journalism', much is based on unnamed sources, biased sources and innuendo. Much of the other unnamed source material has proven to be wrong, see Tom Cotton's quote of Comey's testimony on the NYT.

Flynn changed his story after finding out the Obama administration was 'wiretapping' and eavesdropping on the Trump transition team. There was a slight delay as facts came to light and then he (was forced to) resign.

Discussing sanctions is what a transition team or administration does with Russian ambassadors when sanctions are the policy and the issue between the countries. Why he denied it, I do not know. Media appearances I might guess, making Trump look soft on Russia, after Obama was soft on Putin for 8 years - and gave away part of Europe to him.

The Politico story the rest of the media focused on goes past Flynn to say his Turkish contacts had prior ties to Russia. So does everyone in that realm.

Obama warned Trump about Flynn. And Obama warned America about Trump. Obama made the Iran deal, Paris accord, Iraq surrender, lied about Benghazi etc. Obama is not a trusted source on (anything) foreign policy. Yates and Brennan are partisan hacks. Sorry to say that about folks formerly in high places but it's a pretty obvious fact. Even the intel sources saying they know what was discussed aren't to be trusted given the politization and weaponization of our intel agencies. If a truth came through them, HOW WOULD WE KNOW?

It is when Flynn changed his story that things changed with Pres. Trump. He erred in trusting a person he trusted. Upon discovery, Trump took swift and decisive action, in my judgement.

Tom Cotton is saying the delay of including Flynn where he perhaps shouldn't have was two days. Flynn got briefed on national security matters in that time. BFD. HRC who took more money than that and kept her security clearance for an extra 4 years?? Two standards, always. If Flynn sells that info now while under investigation he will go to prison.

Miami Herald story on this and others keep asking the Treason question. They conclude, probably not.

I don't know what to think about Turkey, today, under the elected Islamic dictator(?) but they are a NATO ally. Treason law has to do with siding with our enemies.

The situation in Syria is complicated. I wish I could find an article (I think it was VDH) where the irony of who is our ally on one front and allied with our enemy on another front goes on and on in the Middle East. But the idea that we might want to take into account what Erdogan in Turkey thinks before we side with his enemy isn't far out of line. I would take the Turkish Kurds over the government of Turkey anyday, but I don't have to deal with the aftermath as they do. In the end, Trump took the Kurds over the NATO ally too. Not exactly evidence he is in bed with Putin, Turkey or anyone else for the wrong reasons, as they keep trying to infer.

The media (IMHO) is AGAIN off chasing shiny objects and trying to delegitimize an administration that meets all the highest standards of its predecessor.

She doesn't have an impressive background at all, known for bad faith, motives and methods. This either sets up some Sandy Burglar opportunities to steal more documents or it sets up a trap for the old administration perhaps to get out of her own unmasking vulnerability. She was likely only unmasking wrongly at the instruction of others. Maybe the IC needed McMaster to grant this access but I can't fathom why.

I can't conceive of how she is still relevant to national security - except to cooperate in an investigation where the target is higher up, which includes only the former President, VP and Sec State that I can think of. Nor can I think of any conceivable conspiracy that would include Rice and McMaster.

Of course this could be a fake doc, no date or address info at the top, but the disclosure source seems reliable to me.

In my opinion McMaster has some explaining to do. WE all know Rice would do *anything* along with her mentor Obama who we know is kept in the loop about everything to bring down Trump and the Republicans